STATEWIDE BUSINESS PLAN FOR A WISCONSIN AERIAL IMAGING PROGRAM
Project Overview• Goal: A business plan outlining the steps Goal: A business plan outlining the steps needed to develop a sustainable, ongoing imagery program in Wisconsin imagery program in Wisconsin• Both short‐term and long‐term needs
Project Overview• Project Deliverables and Tentative Schedule Project Deliverables and Tentative Schedule – Information Gathering • Survey (Aug 20 to Sept 20) Survey (Aug. 20 to Sept. 20) • Regional Meetings (Sept 24‐28) ( p ) • Interviews (Sept 24 to Nov 16) – Aerial Imagery Business Plan • Draft (Jan. 7) • Final (Feb. 11) • …. But it doesn’t end there!
Check us out online• Project documents available at Project documents available at http://orthoplan.sco.wisc.edu/ p p
WROC Update• Andrew Faust Andrew Faust – North Central RPC – (705) 859 5510 ext 305 (705) 859‐5510 ext. 305 – email@example.com
Preliminary Survey Results 974 Total Responses Private Firms • 562 Government • 160 Surveying/Engineering • 253 Commercial • 22 Consultant • 131 Non-Profit • 18 Geospatial Services Government • 16 Aerial Image Acq. • 233 County Non-Profit • 204 State • 117 University/Education • 58 City • 28 Federal • 5 TribalPreliminary data—not controlled for duplicate organization entries, etc.
Preliminary Survey Results• Ortho Imagery Ortho Imagery – Last five years approx. $11 Million – Anticipated next five years approx. $ 8 Million p y pp $ – Reported Annual Benefits $5.314 Million – Cost : Benefit = $1:2.42• Oblique Imagery – Annual Expenses $0.233 Million p $ – Annual Benefits $0.753 Million – Cost : Benefit = $1:2.23
Fundamental Questions• How should an Aerial Imagery Program be How should an Aerial Imagery Program be Structured?• What is the appropriate collection schedule: What is the appropriate collection schedule: – Phases or entire state in a single year? –EEvery 5 years or once every 3‐5 years? 5 35 ?• What is the best method to fund a sustainable aerial imagery program?
How should an Aerial Imagery Program b Structured? be d• Several Potential Options Several Potential Options – State Agency Leadership – State Agency Support State Agency Support – Non‐profit Organization – P bli P i t P t Public‐Private Partnership hi – Voluntary Consortium –O h ? Other?
State Agency Leadership• State agency management and execution g y g• Full time staff devoted to communication, collaboration, management• Procurement done by State• QA/QC by State• B Base products fully funded by state, local option d t f ll f d d b t t l l ti for “buy‐ups”• Multi‐party involvement in standard setting etc Multi party involvement in standard setting, etc.• Base data available at no cost via web services• Example: Virginia, North Carolina p g ,
State Agency Support• Staff technical support for county/municipal pp y/ p governments for RFPs, technical specifications, ground control• QA/QC QA/QC support t• Minimum standards for aerial imagery• Cost share from state Cost share from state• Local control of vendor relationship, timing, execution• State funded data available for use by state agencies at State funded data available for use by state agencies at no cost• Example: South Carolina
Non Profit Non-Profit Organization• Corporate structure as 501cX Corporate structure as 50 cX• Board of Directors representative of the user community (public, private, academic) y p p• Voluntary participation and standards• Build on existing volunteer committees and g geospatial organizations• Membership (corporate, individual, institution)• Contributions from members, Federal, etc.• Example: Indiana
Public Private Public-Private Partnership• Private participation in statewide imagery Private participation in statewide imagery programs• Bing/Google/other? Cost share participation Bing/Google/other? Cost share participation• Limited distribution of data• State leadership• Beyond simply vendor/customer relationship y py / p• Example: Michigan/Bing Partnership
Voluntary Consortium• Volunteer driven and leadership Volunteer driven and leadership• Sometimes ad hoc or specific project driven• Based on common RFP but individual contracting Based on common RFP but individual contracting between members• QA/QC by individual participants / y p p• Data distribution variable• Management of funds and contracts can be g difficult• Example: WROC
Structure Discussion• Are there other models to consider? Are there other models to consider?• What do you see as strengths and weaknesses of each possible structure? of each possible structure?• Which is the most appropriate for Wisconsin?• Which is politically the most likely to be successful?
Collection Schedule• How critical is the 5‐year cycle? How critical is the 5 year cycle?• Can we transition to a multi‐year program? – 1/3 f t t 1/3 of state annually? ll ?
How do we pay for this?• Stable• Predictable• Annual l
Next Steps for the Project• Continue interviews Continue interviews• Collect “success stories”• Analyze survey and interview responses in l di i i more detail• Draft of Business Plan in January
Visit with us!• We will be in the Mahler Board Room for the We will be in the Mahler Board Room for the entire conference• We want to hear from you…. We want to hear from you…. • Martin Roche, GISP – mroche@GeoPlanning Services.com – (407) 608‐9548• Jim Lacy, GISP – Lacy@wisc.edu – (608) 262‐6850